The Strongest Argument for God

[Kenny]

I think Kenny and atheists like him need to stay in a Haunted House.There are haunted houses and places in every State of America where people have experienced ghosts,spirits,orbs flying through the air,paranormal activity,poltergeist activity,etc. People even hire Christian experts and mediums to try to free their home of ghosts/spirits.Yet atheists don't seem to believe it. So they should research haunted places in their State and stay in one.Nothing supernatural Kenny? Why don't you stay in a haunted house? I think you should.

Haunted Locations. Here is a series of videos of haunted places in every State of America Kenny.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 76QWs9vASg

Are you familiar with James Randi and his Million dollar challenge?
Known skeptic James Randi offered $100,000.00 for anyone who could demonstrate proof of supernatural, or paranormal activity under observed conditions. He began this challenge in the 1960’s and though countless people have accepted his challenge, they have all been proven to be fraud. For over 50 years not a single person has been able to prove him wrong and collect his money.
Since you obviously believe in the Supernatural, my question to you is; why do you suppose nobody has been able to shut this man up and take his money? How come one of the owners of some of these haunted houses you speak of haven’t invited Randi and his crew to set up shop and see some paranormal activity and be proven wrong?

It is irrelevant to me, because if you'd really stay in a haunted house you'd see James Randi does'nt know what he is talking about.Do some research because there are haunted locations in your State.You need to experience a ghost,etc so that you know people are not just making it up.People are not hiring experts, mediums,etc to free their house of these things for nothing and you need to experience them yourself.

I live in Washington State; I didn’t see one for Washington State on the link you provided. But how do these things work? Who owns these “haunted houses”? How am I supposed to spend a night there? Is the owner of the house in the business of providing paranormal activity for a small fee for anyone willing to pay the price of a one night stay? What happens if I don’t see any ghosts? Do I get my money back?

It sounds like you are interested.I think, if you really are interested? You should research them.If you experienced a paranormal event how would it change your perception as an atheist? Would it open you up to the spirit realm and the supernatural? From my experience dealing with atheists they tend to reject,deny and explain away any and all evidence for anything having to do with the supernatural. This is why I really believe atheists should experience a haunted location.Even if you don't become a Christian you just might realize atheism is too empty.

Oh yeah. Have you thought about how atheism only offers you death and that is it? How can you choose to be apart of a group that has no evidence atheism is true and even admits that they do not have to have any evidence to know they are correct to live their life as an atheist and then are just offered death and that is it,when they die? I mean that is very empty,so how can you put your hope in it?

I know you don't know much about religion and other gods. But I'd choose Jesus over all over gods just based on the afterlife he offers to those who believe in him compared to any of the other afterlife's other gods offer. I realized this by researching other religions and actually debating people of other religions and this is one argument I use when I debate them. I talk about the afterlife Jesus offers and try to show them that what he offers is far better than what their god offers.And so when I think about atheism and how it just offers just death and nothing more it is the most boring and empty afterlife of all. So how can you put your hope in it?

Care to answer my question?

[Kenny]

How can you choose to be apart of a group that has no evidence atheism is true

Atheism is true??? What does that mean? And (hypothetically speaking) what would such evidence look like?

Ken

[Byblos]

How can you choose to be apart of a group that has no evidence atheism is true

Atheism is true??? What does that mean? And (hypothetically speaking) what would such evidence look like?

Ken

Perhaps you can tell us, using the scientific method of course. And if you can't, why not?

[Kenny]

How can you choose to be apart of a group that has no evidence atheism is true

Atheism is true??? What does that mean? And (hypothetically speaking) what would such evidence look like?

Ken

Perhaps you can tell us, using the scientific method of course. And if you can't, why not?

Atheism is the default position, it is not a position that is required to make a claim thus has nothing to prove.

[RickD]

How can you choose to be apart of a group that has no evidence atheism is true

Atheism is true??? What does that mean? And (hypothetically speaking) what would such evidence look like?

Ken

Perhaps you can tell us, using the scientific method of course. And if you can't, why not?

Atheism is the default position, it is not a position that is required to make a claim thus has nothing to prove.

Prove that atheism is the default position.

[Kenny]

How can you choose to be apart of a group that has no evidence atheism is true

Atheism is true??? What does that mean? And (hypothetically speaking) what would such evidence look like?

Ken

Perhaps you can tell us, using the scientific method of course. And if you can't, why not?

Atheism is the default position, it is not a position that is required to make a claim thus has nothing to prove.

Prove that atheism is the default position.

The way I see it, everybody is either a theist, or an atheist. Theists are people who believe the claims made of a specific God or Gods. Atheists are people who do not believe the claims made of any God or Gods. So when you have camp “A” that asserts a belief, and camp “B”that does not assert a belief, and remains skeptical of any asserted belief; camp “B” is the default position.

Now there are a lot of theists who try to restrict atheism to a person who denies God exist, rather than deny the claims made of said God. The problem with this restriction is when pressed nobody is going to fit into that category because there are too many people, things, or myths that people choose to call God to claim none of those people, things, or myths exist. It’s one thing to not believe the claims of said people, things, or myths; its quite another to claim their non-existence; this in many cases is impossible to prove. If you will remember; when the Romans were throwing Christians to the lions, they were called Atheists; these Christians weren’t claiming the non-existence of all Gods, they just denying the claims of what the Romans called God. In other words, people who believed in God were called Atheists because they did not believe the claims of a specific God. So I find it absurd to try to restrict atheism to someone claiming God does not exist.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
So I find it absurd to try to restrict atheism to someone claiming God does not exist.

So, you have a problem with the definition of atheism? You think you should just be able to redefine words, because you're too afraid to deal with what they actually mean?

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
So I find it absurd to try to restrict atheism to someone claiming God does not exist.

So, you have a problem with the definition of atheism? You think you should just be able to redefine words, because you're too afraid to deal with what they actually mean?

I am not the one trying to change the definition of words. In the real world if you don’t believe it God you’re called atheist; even most christians agree with this definition. I believe it is those trying to claim it means something else who are trying to change the definition.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
So I find it absurd to try to restrict atheism to someone claiming God does not exist.

So, you have a problem with the definition of atheism? You think you should just be able to redefine words, because you're too afraid to deal with what they actually mean?

I am not the one trying to change the definition of words. In the real world if you don’t believe it God you’re called atheist; even most christians agree with this definition. I believe it is those trying to claim it means something else who are trying to change the definition.

Kenny,

Someone who doesn't believe in God, is the same as someone who is claiming that God doesn't exist.

An atheist is:

1) someone who doesn't believe in God.
2)someone who doesn't believe God exists.
3) someone who believes God doesn't exist.
4) someone who claims God doesn't exist.

1, 2, 3, and 4 all mean the same thing.

Just like if I believe God exists, I claim He exists.

If I believe God doesn't exist, I claim He doesn't exist.

Each is a positive claim. You can't wiggle your way out of it. You're being dishonest if you're telling yourself, and us, that it's not a claim.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
So I find it absurd to try to restrict atheism to someone claiming God does not exist.

So, you have a problem with the definition of atheism? You think you should just be able to redefine words, because you're too afraid to deal with what they actually mean?

I am not the one trying to change the definition of words. In the real world if you don’t believe it God you’re called atheist; even most christians agree with this definition. I believe it is those trying to claim it means something else who are trying to change the definition.

Kenny,

Someone who doesn't believe in God, is the same as someone who is claiming that God doesn't exist.

An atheist is:

1) someone who doesn't believe in God.
2)someone who doesn't believe God exists.
3) someone who believes God doesn't exist.
4) someone who claims God doesn't exist.

1, 2, 3, and 4 all mean the same thing.

Just like if I believe God exists, I claim He exists.

If I believe God doesn't exist, I claim He doesn't exist.

Each is a positive claim. You can't wiggle your way out of it. You're being dishonest if you're telling yourself, and us, that it's not a claim.

I disagree. To say I don’t believe in God does not address his existence. To believe IN God means to believe what is said about him. Example; if a Rastafarian ask if I believe in Halle Selassie, I will tell him I don’t. I am not claiming the man he worships never existed, of course he did! I’m just saying I don’t believe the claims his worshippers make of him. If he wanted to know if I believed Halle Selassie existed, it would be up to him to ask if I believe Halle existed.
In theory, if I believed aliens from another planet visited Earth a million years ago, and I believed the primitive men who witnessed the event told stories of it, and those stories eventually changed via “The telephone game” from “evolved beings with advanced technology visited us”, to “the creator of the Universe visited us”, and I believe what Christians call Yahweh, and Muslims call Allah, were exaggerated accounts of those aliens, I would believe what you guys call Yahweh exists even though I wouldn’t call him God thus I would still be atheist towards your religion. Does this make sense to you?

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
So I find it absurd to try to restrict atheism to someone claiming God does not exist.

So, you have a problem with the definition of atheism? You think you should just be able to redefine words, because you're too afraid to deal with what they actually mean?

I am not the one trying to change the definition of words. In the real world if you don’t believe it God you’re called atheist; even most christians agree with this definition. I believe it is those trying to claim it means something else who are trying to change the definition.

Kenny,

Someone who doesn't believe in God, is the same as someone who is claiming that God doesn't exist.

An atheist is:

1) someone who doesn't believe in God.
2)someone who doesn't believe God exists.
3) someone who believes God doesn't exist.
4) someone who claims God doesn't exist.

1, 2, 3, and 4 all mean the same thing.

Just like if I believe God exists, I claim He exists.

If I believe God doesn't exist, I claim He doesn't exist.

Each is a positive claim. You can't wiggle your way out of it. You're being dishonest if you're telling yourself, and us, that it's not a claim.

I disagree. To say I don’t believe in God does not address his existence. To believe IN God means to believe what is said about him. Example; if a Rastafarian ask if I believe in Halle Selassie, I will tell him I don’t. I am not claiming the man he worships never existed, of course he did! I’m just saying I don’t believe the claims his worshippers make of him. If he wanted to know if I believed Halle Selassie existed, it would be up to him to ask if I believe Halle existed.
In theory, if I believed aliens from another planet visited Earth a million years ago, and I believed the primitive men who witnessed the event told stories of it, and those stories eventually changed via “The telephone game” from “evolved beings with advanced technology visited us”, to “the creator of the Universe visited us”, and I believe what Christians call Yahweh, and Muslims call Allah, were exaggerated accounts of those aliens, I would believe what you guys call Yahweh exists even though I wouldn’t call him God thus I would still be atheist towards your religion. Does this make sense to you?

No Kenny. It's nothing but intellectually dishonest BS.

[Kenny]

So, you have a problem with the definition of atheism? You think you should just be able to redefine words, because you're too afraid to deal with what they actually mean?

I am not the one trying to change the definition of words. In the real world if you don’t believe it God you’re called atheist; even most christians agree with this definition. I believe it is those trying to claim it means something else who are trying to change the definition.

Kenny,

Someone who doesn't believe in God, is the same as someone who is claiming that God doesn't exist.

An atheist is:

1) someone who doesn't believe in God.
2)someone who doesn't believe God exists.
3) someone who believes God doesn't exist.
4) someone who claims God doesn't exist.

1, 2, 3, and 4 all mean the same thing.

Just like if I believe God exists, I claim He exists.

If I believe God doesn't exist, I claim He doesn't exist.

Each is a positive claim. You can't wiggle your way out of it. You're being dishonest if you're telling yourself, and us, that it's not a claim.

I disagree. To say I don’t believe in God does not address his existence. To believe IN God means to believe what is said about him. Example; if a Rastafarian ask if I believe in Halle Selassie, I will tell him I don’t. I am not claiming the man he worships never existed, of course he did! I’m just saying I don’t believe the claims his worshippers make of him. If he wanted to know if I believed Halle Selassie existed, it would be up to him to ask if I believe Halle existed.
In theory, if I believed aliens from another planet visited Earth a million years ago, and I believed the primitive men who witnessed the event told stories of it, and those stories eventually changed via “The telephone game” from “evolved beings with advanced technology visited us”, to “the creator of the Universe visited us”, and I believe what Christians call Yahweh, and Muslims call Allah, were exaggerated accounts of those aliens, I would believe what you guys call Yahweh exists even though I wouldn’t call him God thus I would still be atheist towards your religion. Does this make sense to you?

No Kenny. It's nothing but intellectually dishonest BS.

So how am I being intellectually dishonest by thinking this way? Please explain.

[Philip]

Ken: I disagree. To say I don’t believe in God does not address his existence. To believe IN God means to believe what is said about him.

Example; if a Rastafarian ask if I believe in Halle Selassie, I will tell him I don’t. I am not claiming the man he worships never existed, of course he did! I’m just saying I don’t believe the claims his worshippers make of him. If he wanted to know if I believed Halle Selassie existed, it would be up to him to ask if I believe Halle existed.

In theory, if I believed aliens from another planet visited Earth a million years ago, and I believed the primitive men who witnessed the event told stories of it, and those stories eventually changed via “The telephone game” from “evolved beings with advanced technology visited us”, to “the creator of the Universe visited us”, and I believe what Christians call Yahweh, and Muslims call Allah, were exaggerated accounts of those aliens, I would believe what you guys call Yahweh exists even though I wouldn’t call him God thus I would still be atheist towards your religion. Does this make sense to you?

Ken, you are very bad at analogies. And the one you use is irrelevant to the God of the Bible. He either exists or He does not. And whatever the truth of that, it certainly isn't tied up in mythology or false beliefs that people made up and passed along. So, the important and central question of this matter has to do with His existence - because whether Scripture and faith are even relevant at all are tied to that central question. And beyond the powerful revelations of the Creation itself, the only reason we have a substantial description of Yahweh is through His words found and communications revealed in Scripture. So, if one believes SOME God or god(s) exist, then A) they don't meet the definition of an atheist and B) they can't rule out that Yahweh isn't the only TRUE God. And if a person believing in some other god is really honest with themself and really desires to know the truth, then they would carefully sift and examine their god and related teachings about whatever god, to see if their faith in their god is merited (I know I seriously and exhaustively have examined this question). As well, they should sift the claims of the Bible and it's revelations about God.

People in Jesus' day wildly speculated about who or what He might be. So, in Mark 8, he asks His disciples about what people were speculating about Him, and they were all over the map in their opinions:

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.”

And ever the master questioner with His laserbeam questions that quickly got to the most critical heart of a matter, Jesus' followup question contrasted the irrelevant opinions of the chattering masses with THE central question He wanted each person to ask themself: (verse 29) "“But who do YOU say that I am?” Because THAT is THE key question every unbeliever should ask themself about Jesus and the God of the Bible. As the rest is just joining in on the babbling musings of the chattering masses.

But, Ken, just from a technical definition standpoint, ALL atheists currently have dismissed the idea that God (or any gods) could exist. Atheists simply are not THEISTs!

[Kenny]

Ken: I disagree. To say I don’t believe in God does not address his existence. To believe IN God means to believe what is said about him.

Example; if a Rastafarian ask if I believe in Halle Selassie, I will tell him I don’t. I am not claiming the man he worships never existed, of course he did! I’m just saying I don’t believe the claims his worshippers make of him. If he wanted to know if I believed Halle Selassie existed, it would be up to him to ask if I believe Halle existed.

In theory, if I believed aliens from another planet visited Earth a million years ago, and I believed the primitive men who witnessed the event told stories of it, and those stories eventually changed via “The telephone game” from “evolved beings with advanced technology visited us”, to “the creator of the Universe visited us”, and I believe what Christians call Yahweh, and Muslims call Allah, were exaggerated accounts of those aliens, I would believe what you guys call Yahweh exists even though I wouldn’t call him God thus I would still be atheist towards your religion. Does this make sense to you?

Ken, you are very bad at analogies. And the one you use is irrelevant to the God of the Bible. He either exists or He does not. And whatever the truth of that, it certainly isn't tied up in mythology or false beliefs that people made up and passed along. So, the important and central question of this matter has to do with His existence - because whether Scripture and faith are even relevant at all are tied to that central question. And beyond the powerful revelations of the Creation itself, the only reason we have a substantial description of Yahweh is through His words found and communications revealed in Scripture. So, if one believes SOME God or god(s) exist, then A) they don't meet the definition of an atheist and B) they can't rule out that Yahweh isn't the only TRUE God. And if a person believing in some other god is really honest with themself and really desires to know the truth, then they would carefully sift and examine their god and related teachings about whatever god, to see if their faith in their god is merited (I know I seriously and exhaustively have examined this question). As well, they should sift the claims of the Bible and it's revelations about God.

People in Jesus' day wildly speculated about who or what He might be. So, in Mark 8, he asks His disciples about what people were speculating about Him, and they were all over the map in their opinions:

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.”

And ever the master questioner with His laserbeam questions that quickly got to the most critical heart of a matter, Jesus' followup question contrasted the irrelevant opinions of the chattering masses with THE central question He wanted each person to ask themself: (verse 29) "“But who do YOU say that I am?” Because THAT is THE key question every unbeliever should ask themself about Jesus and the God of the Bible. As the rest is just joining in on the babbling musings of the chattering masses.

Nothing you've said thus far has anything to do with the points I made; all you've done thus far is make unsubstantiated claims and preach.

But, Ken, just from a technical definition standpoint, ALL atheists currently have dismissed the idea that God (or any gods) could exist. Atheists simply are not THEISTs!

Not quite, an atheist can recognize what YOU (or even somebody else) call God may exist, but the atheist doesn't call it God.

[Philip]

Ken: Not quite, an atheist can recognize what YOU (or even somebody else) call God may exist, but the atheist doesn't call it God.

You just made my point - that people can - and many do - KNOW that God exists, but they refuse to call Him God, or recognize Him as THEIR God. But such a person is NOT an atheist. The Bible clearly reveals that demons and Satan are not atheists, but they refuse to recognize God as He truly is - as they want nothing to do with Him. So, as far as Christianity is concerned, there are three types of unbelievers: 1) An unbeliever who knows God exists but resists and hates everything about Him; 2) Unbelievers who have convinced themselves that God doesn't even exist; 3) Those who reject the God of the Bible, but that follow a false god or gods instead.